ads
Its a very good question and now we are getting to the heart of the matter. There is plenty of blame to go around, but no one seems to want to own it. The banks encouraged reckless spending on all levels by convincing people that they could have it all now and worry about the paying later. Governments around the globe provided too much cheap money by manipulating rates for too long and pumped up bubbles in consumption, the stockmarket and property. As one bubble burst - the tech market, they pumped up another in the form of housing. Rather than take the hangover they tried to keep the party going.
As i have written many times in the past, the recession is the solution, the boom was the problem. Despite the banks, no one forced anyone to borrow money to consume or to speculate on shares or property. I have however some sympathy for those who bought a home and were obliged to pay too much, but other forms of debt and consumption were entirely voluntary.
In the case of the Eurozone, i think its pretty obvious now that the project was flawed from the start. Even if you ignore the "looking the other way" that went on as regards the entry qualifications with the Med area countries and down right fraud as in the case of Greece, the pact was always destined for failure imho.
If i lived in Germany, i might chose to sit in a traffic jam in the rain on my way to a stressful well paid job, consoling myself with the luxury smell of the leather in my BMW and the sounds of my Bang & Olufsen stereo. On the other hand if i lived in the Southern Med i might prefer to watch the world go by at the waters edge, happy with a cafe con leche and a good chin wag with my friends. The well paid job probably wasn't going to be an option anyway.
And -------- Who said that the average Med man wanted to work like a Brit or a German anyway? Sure they wanted to live and spend like one, but did anyone really think it was going to last. The differences socially, culturally and in education and climate and just about everything else are so great, it was a union that was never going to work as regards finance. The Bank of England meet each quarter with 12 of the "brightest" minds and carefully steer the economy with 1/4 point rate steps between the twin perils of inflation and deflation ( or so we are told ) and yet everyone expects a bunch of economies as diverse as Greece and Portugal to Germany to manage happily on one rate fits all. Someone's leg is getting pulled!
To find the best solution to the crisis which to be fair is the question - you have to know what is/was the problem.
The problem is largely decades of living beyound our means courtesy of debt and fractional reserve banking. The Euro project was a huge enabler of this, for a long time it allowed countries like Greece and Spain to borrow at German rates and live like kings. Of course at first it was all good and everyone was happy, now it all is mostly bad and everyone is unhappy.
But I ask you what did people expect? Did people really think that someone else ie Germany was going to foot the bill for pensions and public sector non jobs that the country itself could never afford. Did they think that the bond markets would just go on extending debt for ever with no rational hope of ever getting paid back?
So now there are two solutions, neither of which is going to be any fun. The easy option expired probably 10 years ago.
The first is to try and pay the money back, but in the case of most countries this is not going to be possible. Austerity and tax hikes is inevitably going to cause a negative spiral as in already evident in the UK and near its conclusion in Greece. Even if this was possible it would take perhaps a good decade or more of painful living, not just spending less that earned, but some how finding all the spare to redeem the debt. How many countries can balance their budgets now and they are not even repaying the debt, they are still stuck on interest only. Without the debt based consumption, their economies are going to shrink and the unemployment is going to soar and then take away all the public sector non jobs and the economy is going to fall off a cliff, taking house prices and the banks with it.
That brings us to the second option which is some kind of default. Now you have the option of a soft default or a hard one. The first is the chosen option of the UK and US, but as we have already talked about, inflating away the debt is a double edged sword. If printing money was a good option, then Zimbabwe would now be a world power. Because of this the ECB is not willing to take this route - or atleast thats what they are saying now. Why after all should Germany debauche its currency to rescue nations that have spent and now can;t pay?
The hard default is when you say you can;t or won;t pay. In this case effectively the lender pays because in all cases either the borrower or the lender pays. There is no tooth fairy in the big bad world.
When the lender pays he suffers and then you suffer. He can no longer afford to loan new money and even if he could, you ain't on the invitation list anymore. Then you as a country have to manage on what you earn and no more. in the case of Greece where tax evasion is a way of life, the budget is suddenly very small. Overnight the 5% public sector pay cuts suddenly look like a tremendous option and any kind of pension looks like a fantastic deal. Currency devaluation makes things worse and the standard of living and economy fall off a cliff.
So the end result is the same in both cases, except the soft option takes longer and extends the misery and the final bill as a result of trying to push it under the carpet. The hangover gets postponed by one more last drink.
You choose - up to you. Pain and misery now or more later?